Win, I loved the 'intelligent design' article... but I think you missed the best quote <g>
It has an appeal to intellectuals who don't know anything about evolutionary biology,
And this rather telling comment...
the movement has gained support among a few scientists in other disciplines, most of them conservative Christians.
In other words, those who want to believe in a particular stance, and then selectively work to that.
The real 'strength' of such an unprovable is this. I think that in the next few decades, it will be possible to create viable life from inorganic synthesis - not necessarily in end-to-end fashion, but by the construction of proteins from inorganics, and the use of the same proteins as building blocks (note that both could be randomised, but the second at least would probably just take too long - after all, the first time(s) it took millions of years...: while a computer simulation, which coudl be speeded, wouldn't count). Upon which, of course, the ID take is either 'well, you designed it so that proves our point' or - more insidiously - claiming that the design is not even in the building, but in the shaping of the physical/chemical laws that allowed said molecular building...
In other words, staying unknowable, unprovable and adding nothing of value to science or knowledge.
</rant> I'd better stop there... |
